9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Vee Kayan Industries v. C.C.E. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.) the impugned order suffers legally and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief according to law. The said order was challenged by Revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the order in Civil Appeal No. 4366-4369/2003 on 13-4-2011 reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 436 (S.C.) remanded the matter back with the following directions. "Therefore, it was required for the Tribunal to discuss the evidence and thereafter come to a finding as to whether or not there was any manufacturing activity on the part of the respondent on the facts and circumstances of the present case. That being the position, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh and de novo consideration of all the issues. While doing so, the Tribunal shall record reasons for its decision". Therefore this matter is before us. 3. Shri M.H. Patil the learned Advocate for the appellant appeared and submitted that the period involved in this matter is 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1995 whereas the show-cause notice have been issued on 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs into bright bars does not amount to manufacture and no Central Excise duty is leviable on clearance of bright bars wherein it was held that transformation of round bars into bright bars does not result in bringing out a distinct and different commodity and further that said transformation of round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. He further submitted that vide Trade Notice No. 18/2003 dated 14-8-2003 the Board clarified that any activity out of which a new commodity having distinct name, character and use was held to be a process of manufacture, the activity of drawing of bright bars from wire rods, will continue to be treated as amounting to manufacture. The said Trade Notice was withdrawn by the Trade Notice No. 15/2004 dated 16-6-2004 clarifying that relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vee Kayan Industries (supra) the manufacture of drawing bright bars from wire rods as a process of manufacture through their Trade Notice No. 18/2003 dated 14-8-2003 is hereby withdrawn. Therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture. He further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed in this Court that Tariff entry 26AA(ia) levies duty on bars. The Tribunal held that passing of the round bars through slight narrow diameter resulted in change of form and shape and since this transformation of round bars into bright bars resulted in bringing out a distinct and different commodity, the appellant was liable to pay duty on it. "Thereafter, the Apex Court hold that this finding does not appear to be correct in law as in absence of any material on record or any finding by the Tribunal that mere drawing of a round bar through a slight narrow diameter resulted in bringing out a new commodity, the finding that it changed in form or shape without any evidence cannot be accepted. In the absence of any material to show that in commercial circle, the bars and bright bars are different, the inference drawn by the Tribunal cannot be upheld". In result the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that transformation of round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture as no new product emerges. We have gone through the facts of this case also, the department has failed to brought any evidence on record that the conversion of M.S. round into bright bars have changed in form o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognized as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place. In the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh-I v. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus. reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.) "the burden to prove that there is manufacture and that what is manufactured in on the Revenue". Merely because an item fall in a Tariff Entry, that does not amount to manufacture. 8. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 22896 of 1996 in the case of Amit Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Others wherein the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court had occasion to answer the question whether the transformation of M.S. round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture or not? The same has been answered that 'the transformation of round bars into bright bars does not result in bringing out a distinct and different commodity and further the said transformation of round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act'. We have gone through the Finance Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
